Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: John Cowan <email@example.com>
- To: XML Dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 16:08:17 -0400
David Brownell wrote:
> DocumentSource?? Not a SAX class ... :-)
> If you mean InputSource, the issue I'd raise there is that
> it'd imply that all SAX parsers should be able to accept DOM
> as input.
InputSource, of course. And I was talking about an extension
(subclass) of InputSource specific to DOM parsing, not changing
(extending) InputSource. Sorry for the confusion.
Another option is to change InputSource to support a single
additional pair of methods: get/setSourceObject(Object o).
The meaning of this would be specific to the particular parser
and the run-time type of o.
> Why do you not like making that property (dom-node) be read/write,
Essentially because the value of getProperty("dom-node") is a Node,
whereas the argument to setProperty("dom-node", doc) needs to be a
Document. This is an ugly asymmetry, even though the compiler is
unable to check the type. Adding a new property
("dom-document") would be better, but not better than overloading
InputSource, which is already meant for the job of specifying
> beyond that not being what you implemented already?
John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan email@example.com
You tollerday donsk? N. You tolkatiff scowegian? Nn.
You spigotty anglease? Nnn. You phonio saxo? Nnnn.
Clear all so! 'Tis a Jute.... (Finnegans Wake 16.5)
xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To (un)subscribe, mailto:email@example.com the following message;
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org the following message;
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:email@example.com)